FINA#147: Bill C-69 on Concerns Around Expanding Immigration Detention into Federal Prisons

I'll also cede to Ms. Kwan if she wants to speak.

I have MP Davies.

MP Kwan, would you also like to speak to these?

I could certainly....

Okay. I have MP Davies, and then if you'd like, I will go to you.

MP Davies.

Mr. Chair, I was just going to suggest that. I see my colleague is here, so I'll cede to Ms. Kwan. Is it okay, with the indulgence of the committee, to remain here while Ms. Kwan speaks?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you.

(On clause 391)

Go ahead, MP Kwan.

Thank you, MP Kwan.

Are there any other members?

Mr. Lawrence.

With these sections, especially if the Bloc and NDP are voting a certain way, our vote becomes the linchpin. We may not be voting the same way on every one in this grouping, so Conservatives would ask for a clause-by-clause vote. This is not to be non-collaborative, but because our vote could change the outcome.

What's been asked for is a clause-by-clause vote on these clauses. We will start with clause 391.

On division.

I asked for a recorded vote, but I would defer to my colleague Ms. Kwan on that.

I would prefer to have a recorded vote, if we may.

(Clause 391 negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

(Clause 397 negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

(Clause 400 negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

(Clause 401 negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

(Clause 403 negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

Shall clause 404—

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

We may be willing to group these up until clause 412 and have a recorded division.

Thank you, MP Chambers.

Because there are some clauses in between that have amendments, we can do clauses 404, 405, 408 and 411. We could group all of those.

Can we do clauses 413 to 432 inclusive as well?

No. Those are not part of it.

What we're voting on right now, members, are clauses 404, 405, 408 and 411.

Is that on division?

No, it's a recorded vote.

I'm sorry. I did not look at the screen and I missed that.

MP Kwan, you had your hand up. I apologize.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I believe that, if these clauses are defeated, the amendments would not apply. Clauses 403 to 411 inclusive are NDP amendments, but they would only be applicable if these clauses were not defeated. If the vote is to defeat all of these clauses, the amendments would not apply.

Does that make sense?

MP Kwan, right now, the clauses that we cited, and that I spoke on and said we would be voting on, are clauses that do not have any amendments.

That's correct.

I think the comment was made that there is a willingness to group all of these clauses up until clause 411 and do an on-division vote. If that's the case, amendments NDP-23, NDP-24 and NDP-24.1 would not apply. We would not be moving those amendments if all of these clauses are defeated. That is to say, if the committee wishes to proceed with doing an on-division vote up to clause 411, that would be fine and I won't move those amendments.

Does that make sense?

MP Kwan, when we get to the amended clauses, you can move them at that time, or you can decide not to move them at that time.

I have a point of order.

Could we suspend for a moment to get organized here? I feel like we're going off the rails on this. It's just for a quick minute or two.

Okay, we'll suspend. Let's get back in order again.

Where we left off, we had just voted on clause 403. That's where we are.

Thank you.

We're back.

To recap where we left off, we had just voted on clause 403.

We're on clause 404.

MP Ste-Marie.

Does that help, MP Ste-Marie?

I think he's frozen.

MP Ste. Marie, you're frozen. You are smiling; it caught you in a good freeze there.

We can get to these, and, MP Kwan, when we get to those that have amendments, we'll then have an opportunity for that.

PS Turnbull.

I wanted to clarify something with regard to what Ms. Kwan said. When we do get to division 39, where I think some of the amendments that the NDP will propose apply, in terms of the number of clauses that relate to that division, we'll be working on the ones that are unamended first. We're hoping to have her support on those because, otherwise, as she said, the amendments she's proposing might not apply because the division will not hang together.

I wanted to put that out there because it is a different process from what perhaps some other committees do. With her not having been involved in all the conversations with Mr. Davies, I wanted to make Ms. Kwan aware of that so she's 100% clear.

I hope that's helpful, and it was brought forward with the intention of being helpful.

Thank you, PS Turnbull.

That was for MP Kwan, if you didn't capture that.

We'll suspend.

We're back and we're glad that MP Ste-Marie is in his constituency office. He's safe, secure and the system is working well. That's all good and we're glad.

I have some hands up before we go to where we were.

We have MP Ste-Marie and then PS Turnbull.

The clauses you were speaking to are the ones with amendments. We'll get to those after we get through the clauses that did not have amendments.

Thank you, MP Ste-Marie for that.

PS Turnbull.

My understanding is that some of the clauses in division 38 have been struck from the bill, based on the committee members' votes before the suspension.

I understand that committee members have voted that way. It's all good for us, but I would just ask for unanimous consent to remove and withdraw division 38 entirely from the bill, as all committee members that I've spoken with, as far as I understand, are for removing that.

We on the government side don't want only a piece of division 38 in there, so we'd ask for unanimous consent to withdraw all of division 38.

It doesn't make sense to have one clause floating in space, so Conservatives are agreeable to that.

I see the Bloc is agreeable also, and the NDP...?

I'm sorry. I just have a procedural question.

What's the difference between withdrawing a section or simply defeating it? We've already defeated part of it.

Is there any practical or procedural implication for doing it either way?

That's a good question.

MP Davies is asking about the withdrawing or the defeating of a section.

The legislative clerk is going to explain what was just asked for and procedurally how to do what is being requested by PS Turnbull, with unanimous consent from the members.

We're going to suspend for a couple of minutes so they can put everything in order and inform the members.

Members, unanimous consent was agreed on to rescind division 38, and that is from clause 385 to 432. In doing this we rescind those that were already voted on and we would now defeat all clauses from 385 to 432. That would rescind division 38. Is that clear with all members?

I just want to be clear that I misspoke earlier and didn't say that there were pieces of division 38 that were actually voted through and adopted, and there were pieces that weren't adopted. The whole reason for wanting to remove the whole division is to remove those pieces that we adopted as well, because it's a whole division and it's all about improvements to the processing for asylum seekers in Canada. We would just prefer to have the whole thing gone rather than have a piecemeal version that's not going to make sense.

Thanks.

I have a question of procedure. If a committee votes down a section of a bill can those sections be reintroduced in another bill later?

MP Chambers, it can be done at report stage.

Just on that, we're rescinding our actions, but we're defeating them en masse. The government is not withdrawing those sections. We're withdrawing the votes that happened as if they never happened, and then we're just defeating that whole section. Is that the intent?

Yes.

We're defeating it. Is that correct?

You're defeating. Everybody is defeating. The only way to get rid of that division 38 is to defeat it all, and that would be from clause 385 to 432.

It has to be UC because we're going back in history.

Is there unanimous consent to go back to clauses 385 to 432?

(Clauses 385 to 432 inclusive negatived)

Members, now the grouping we are at is clauses 433 to 437 and clauses 439 and 440.

I would request a recorded vote on the missing sections because my instructions are to vote against those.

We are having a recorded vote on the grouping, members, of 433 to 437, 439 and 440.

(Clauses 433 to 437, 439 and 440 agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)

Members, now we are going to start on the clauses with amendments. We will go back to the clauses with amendments that have been submitted. The first one is 38 and it's CPC-1.

(On clause 38)

--------

4 p.m.

 

The Chair Peter Fonseca
Liberal

Members, clause 438 is where we are now, and we are at NDP-26.1.

 

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I move amendment NDP-26.1.

I should note that, on May 13, actually, more than 80 civil society organizations, settlement agencies and religious groups wrote a very strongly worded letter to the Prime Minister about these provisions in the budget implementation act—

 

The Chair Peter Fonseca
Liberal

MP Kwan, I'm sorry to interject, but because you're not subbed in, it has to be MP Davies who moves it.

 

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Oh, I thought I was subbed in. Okay.

 

The Chair Peter Fonseca
Liberal

Yes, for NDP-26.1.... You may be subbed in, but when MP Davies is in the room, the substitution does not take place.

 

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

I see.

 

Don Davies Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Liberal

If I leave the room, then, can Ms. Kwan...?

 

The Chair Peter Fonseca
Liberal

Yes. MP Davies can move it, but if MP Davies doesn't move it, then MP Davies has to leave the room and MP Kwan can move it.

 

Don Davies Vancouver Kingsway, BC
NDP

Mr. Chair, if I move it, then can Ms. Kwan speak to it?

 

The Chair Peter Fonseca
Liberal

Yes.

 

Don Davies Vancouver Kingsway, BC
NDP

Okay—maybe that's easier. I move that amendment.

 

The Chair Peter Fonseca
Liberal

That is NDP-26.1. MP Davies moved that amendment.

MP Kwan, please go ahead.

 

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I will speak to it very briefly.

As I was indicating, on March 13, over 80 civil societies, settlement agencies and religious organizations wrote a strongly worded letter to the Prime Minister with their concerns around expanding immigration detention into federal prisons.

Earlier today, the provisions around setting up this format were passed, but with that being said, this amendment is an attempt by the NDP to at least try to put some parameters within that framework, to have “high risk” clearly defined in legislation rather than leaving it up to regulation and having it be defined behind closed doors.

To that end, Mr. Chair, that's what the amendment seeks to do. The definition of “high risk” is really meant to provide some limitations around what would be deemed as high risk in this instance.

Mr. Chair, I just want to highlight a couple of elements within that. I won't, of course, read the entire amendment into the record here.

Really, we attempted to put some parameters there as to the nature and level of danger to the public the person poses related to, for example, any conviction to do with sexual offences or an offence involving violence or weapons and for the same conviction outside of Canada. As well, there are provisions with regard to pending charges for these offences. Also, we wanted to put parameters around engagement with terrorism or gang activities and such.

Mr. Chair, I think these are some of the provisions for declaring what is deemed to be “high risk” in that context.

The other thing worth noting here is that we're also adding to this with an amendment around mental health; when considering these matters, the mental health aspect of the individual should also be taken into consideration. That's written within the amendment here.

Of course, there are some accountability measures related to it, which means that when someone is to be detained, there has to be some level of accountability with respect to written notice advising the individual as such and then, of course, allowing the individual to undertake representation if they seek to do so.

That's a quick summary of where it is at in terms of trying to put these parameters in place.

 

The Chair Peter Fonseca
Liberal

Thank you, MP Kwan.

I have PS Turnbull, who would also like to speak to this.

 

Ryan Turnbull Whitby, ON
Liberal

Very briefly, thanks to the member for bringing this forward. I think this is a good amendment that reflects the advocacy of both parliamentarians and senators, so we're happy to support this.

Thanks.

 

The Chair Peter Fonseca
Liberal

Thank you, PS Turnbull.

I don't see anybody else.

Shall NDP-26.1 carry?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

 

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Mr. Chair, could we get a recorded vote on this, please?

 

The Chair Peter Fonseca
Liberal

It just carried. It just went through.

 

 

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Okay.

 

The Chair Peter Fonseca
Liberal

I'm sorry, MP Kwan. I didn't get it before I asked for the vote.

Shall clause 438, as amended, carry?

(Clause 438 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 441)

Now we are at clause 441 and amendment NDP-27.1.

 

Don Davies Vancouver Kingsway, BC
NDP

It is so moved, Mr. Chair.

 

The Chair Peter Fonseca
Liberal

MP Davies has moved that amendment. I just need to read something in here, because it has been moved.

Members, just so everybody is aware, if NDP-27.1 is adopted, NDP-28 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.

Would anybody like to speak to NDP-27.1?

MP Kwan, please go ahead.

 

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

If I could just take a couple of moments to speak to this, this clause speaks to the sunset clause in the bill. My amendment seeks to reduce the sunset clause to two years, Mr. Chair. I hope committee members will support it.

 

The Chair Peter Fonseca
Liberal

On NDP-27.1, PS Turnbull, go ahead.

 

Ryan Turnbull Whitby, ON
Liberal

Just very quickly, yes, we appreciate Ms. Kwan and the NDP's advocacy on this. We will be supporting it.

 

The Chair Peter Fonseca
Liberal

Shall NDP-27.1 carry?

It carries.

 

Gabriel Ste-Marie Joliette, QC
Bloc

Perhaps it's time to request a recorded vote. Did Ms. Kwan request one?

 

The Chair Peter Fonseca
Liberal

It's actually just gone through again. Nobody said anything. It's carried.

Shall clause 441 as amended carry?

It's carried.

Members, we are now on clause—

 

Ryan Turnbull Whitby, ON
Liberal

On a point of order, can we have a quick suspension? I think we made a bit of an error on our end.

 

The Chair Peter Fonseca
Liberal

We are suspended.

 

The Chair Peter Fonseca
Liberal

Thank you, everybody, for the time.

Yes, PS Turnbull, go ahead.

 

Ryan Turnbull Whitby, ON
Liberal

I apologize, colleagues, but I was a bit confused on NDP-27.1. We're moving quite quickly, I admit—and that's a good thing, of course; we're making lots of progress—but we would like to revisit the vote on NDP-27.1, and I ask for the committee's consent to do so.

 

The ChairPeter Fonseca
Liberal

For that to be, PS Turnbull, we need unanimous consent to open clause 441, and then, of course, unanimous consent to go back to NDP-27.1.

MP Lawrence.

 

Philip Lawrence Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Conservative

Conservatives agree to UC, but when I woke up this morning I did not expect to be accused by the Liberal Party of moving their budget through too quickly.

 

Philip LawrenceNorthumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Conservative

(On clause 441)

 

The Chair Peter Fonseca
Liberal

We have unanimous consent, so now, members, we're back on clause 441 and NDP-27.1.

Does it have to be moved again? No. NDP-27.1 is reopened.

 

Ryan Turnbull Whitby, ON
Liberal

Can we have a recorded division?

 

The Chair Peter Fonseca
Liberal

Go ahead, MP Kwan.

 

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, I was just going to call for a recorded division on this.

I want people to understand what's happening here and the reason that we're revisiting NDP-27.1. It's the provision on the sunset clause, with my amendment to have a sunset clause of two years for the immigration detention provisions of this bill. However, it appears that a mistake was made: The Liberal members did not intend to support this amendment; neither did the Conservatives, so what is required is a unanimous consent motion for us to revisit this, and this is what we're doing.

The NDP—and I won't speak for the Bloc, but I know that we share the same views on this matter—want to see a two-year sunset clause. However, if we did not provide unanimous consent to revisit this, then the Liberals and Conservatives would join, in a coalition fashion, to defeat the entire amended section on the sunset clause, which we do not want.

I want to have the opportunity to then move another amendment under NDP-28 that changes the sunset clause to five years instead of two.

 

The Chair Peter Fonseca
Liberal

Thank you, MP Kwan.

On that, members, we go to a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Okay, so now, because it was defeated, we can go to NDP-28. MP Davies, you will have to move it.

 

Don Davies Vancouver Kingsway, BC
NDP

It's so moved.

 

The Chair Peter Fonseca
Liberal

MP Davies has moved that, and there is a hand up.

Go ahead, MP Kwan.

 

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

NDP-28 is an amendment to change the sunset clause to five years with no renewal. Seeing as how NDP-27.1—we wanted to see a sunset clause of two years with no renewal—was just defeated, we now are moving forward with another suggestion, which is a sunset clause of five years with no renewal.

I hope committee members will support this.

 

The ChairPeter Fonseca
Liberal

Thank you, MP Kwan.

(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 441 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 445)

Members, we are now at clause 445, and this is BQ-4.

 

Click this link to read the full transcript of the committee meeting:

https://openparliament.ca/committees/finance/44-1/147/jenny-kwan-10/?singlepage=1